Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a
shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser,
MarcX::Reader::Isis, etc. Any objection?
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Saiful Amin wrote:
> I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
> Biblio::Isis.
Biblio:: strikes me the wrong way -- MARC is used for more than just
bibliographic records, strictly speaking. I'd like Bryan's suggestion
of MARC::Moo
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:04 AM, Frédéric DEMIANS wrote:
>I'm not very comfortable with this library naming. Its purpose is very similar
>to MARC::Record and it is named 'Marc' and Marc::etc.
>Do you think, especially those managing MARC::Record, that it could be
>confusing and should b
I can't really comment on the namespace issue, but I do appreciate the
fact that this was written as a Moose module. That makes it much more
traditionally OO friendly, extensible, and if required, secure. When I
used Marc::Record more extensively, it was a favorite. I've worked on
several pro
Thanks for your feedback.
A couple of questions and comments (some left over from the much earlier
conversion from MARC.pm to the MARC::Record family):
1. Do you ever expect someone to use both your modules and MARC::Record
at the same time? If so, you need to be extra careful about name
overla
I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
Biblio::Isis.
Biblio::Marc sounds good to me.
Just a quick note: There is MARC::Fast[1] which should be named
Biblio::MARC because they share same API from end-user perspective.
However, it was written before Biblio::Isis, so it ended up in wrong
place.
I would prefer to have MooseX in name, because if I'm using Moose, I
don't really care
I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
Biblio::Isis.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
> It looks to me as if MooseX is used exclusively for extensions to the Moose
> system itself, not random modules that happen to use Moose.
>
> On 11/10/10
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:01:17PM +0530, Saiful Amin wrote:
> I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
> Biblio::Isis.
Just a quick note: There is MARC::Fast[1] which should be named
Biblio::MARC because they share same API from end-user perspective.
However, it was
It looks to me as if MooseX is used exclusively for extensions to the Moose
system itself, not random modules that happen to use Moose.
On 11/10/10 7:59 AM, "Bill Birthisel" wrote:
3. There is not really much of a problem (for users) with long names. It
appears MooseX:: is currently in common u
A couple of questions and comments (some left over from the much earlier
conversion from MARC.pm to the MARC::Record family):
1. Do you ever expect someone to use both your modules and MARC::Record
at the same time? If so, you need to be extra careful about name
overlaps.
2. MARC::Record also han
On 10/11/10 11:59, Bill Birthisel wrote:
> 3. There is not really much of a problem (for users) with long names. It
> appears MooseX:: is currently in common use on CPAN - so I would
> recommend MooseX::MARC. That appears to be to clearest choice and the
> one that fits the current naming patterns
Just out of curiosity - what was your main motivation for writing
another MARC module?
In what ways does your distribution differ from MARC::Record?
Moose Object-Oriented code reusability. I can clearly (hope so)
distinguish Marc record manipulation, parsing, converting, formatting,
reading
13 matches
Mail list logo
